Two Forms of Democracy: A Response to Mendelsohn's “PublicBrokerage: Constitutional Reform and the Accommodation of Mass Publics”

Extract

Underlying Matthew Mendelsohn's plea for popular participation in constitution making is a tradition of democratic thought that Jennifer Smith calls “anti–partyism.” This is not the place to describe types of anti–partyism, or trace its roots in Rousseau; I will say only that in Canadian history, and still today, anti–partyism is critical of parliamentary government. In the mid–nineteenth century its proponents argued for the rule of the demos, “the many”; they called their philosophy, “democracy.” They were not calling merely for an extension of the franchise; they criticized the very idea of representative and responsible institutions, contending that responsible parliamentary government empowered “the few” at the expense of “the many.” Today, most scholars regard parliamentary government as a form of democracy, and usually remember that “democracy” has more than one definition. In his article, Mendelsohn unfortunately uses “democracy” to describe only views inclining to anti–partyism.